I don't think her conclusion quite follows. She argues that the result is good for the Liberals (trouble for the other parties), but then goes on to argue that the byelection results were due to the fact that "a plurality of Lac-Saint-Jean voters wanted one of their own at the federal government table."

Well, if that's the case, then it's not good for the Liberals, it's good for whoever these voters expect to win in 2019. It's a decent chance that might be the Liberals, but I suspect that all 3 major federal parties will have a shot even if they aren't equal shots.

I don't think her conclusion quite follows. She argues that the result is good for the Liberals (trouble for the other parties), but then goes on to argue that the byelection results were due to the fact that "a plurality of Lac-Saint-Jean voters wanted one of their own at the federal government table."

Well, if that's the case, then it's not good for the Liberals, it's good for whoever these voters expect to win in 2019. It's a decent chance that might be the Liberals, but I suspect that all 3 major federal parties will have a shot even if they aren't equal shots.

It is unreasonable to assume that the same calculation would exist in a general election. In a byelection your chocie is a government member or not. You cannot change the government. With an option to change a government on the table and an unpredictable (at times) result, the desire to put your own in government is less realistic. Byelections also show that the opportunity to punish a government is a powerful force. Clearly this was not a factor there whereas it could be elsewhere.

It is unreasonable to assume that the same calculation would exist in a general election. In a byelection your chocie is a government member or not. You cannot change the government. With an option to change a government on the table and an unpredictable (at times) result, the desire to put your own in government is less realistic.

Right, this is exactly what I meant. With such a calculation, the conclusion should be "the Liberals won because they are the government right now and that wasn't going to change no matter how they voted, but next time things may be different." So I don't understand her conclusion that the result is good for the Liberals.

I think Chantal Hebert is also saying that the way the vote breaks down in Quebec gives the Liberals an advantage because the NDP is on the decline in Quebec, the BQ is stuck being a permanent opposition party, and the Conservatives have never really caught on.

The Liberals had an advantage in the byelection because some voters wanted a government member to represent them, but there may also be other reasons why the Liberals have done well in Quebec since 2015 (eg. Liberals are the progressive party with the best chance of winning, people like Trudeau's positive image, etc.)

But Quebec politics is complicated, and things could change again by 2019.

Taken from Polling thread, had I responded there it would have been post 100

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not sure honeymoons always happen.

Yes. Trudeau's "honeymoon" was all about his name and his father's legacy. People are nostalgic over Trudeau Sr.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The US political mess is likely going to hurt the Conservatives here I think and it may help Trudeau in a couple ways both by contrast and in terms of some sympathy about how hard their job is.

Yes. He will get the credit for CETA because it's the Liberals that "saved" it at the last minute. If he does okay on NAFTA it will be a huge feather in his cap and there is a very good chance that he will. He is also working on a deal with the UK who is anxious to sign and the TPP has gone up in popularity since Trump started threatening NAFTA. I expect Trudeau's campaign will focus on his trade accomplishments.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

They have not delivered to environmentalist, Indigenous people and anyone concerned with electoral reform. they had a lot of support from people who may not even be counted on to vote next time.

I think electoral reform is only really important to dedicated NDP or Green supporters that wouldn't have voted for him anyway. He could certainly lose some votes over it but he could gain votes on other issues so I think it will balance out easily. He won't satisfy dedicated environmentalists but he may have enough to brag about to satisfy people who care about the environment but don't consider themselves "environmentalists". Indigenous people are used to being severely disappointed. By the time 2019 arrives he will clearly have failed to meet even 50% of what he promised but he will be able to say that he has been working on it. He will have a list of accomplishments long enough to offset the negatives. He will say he worked on it and wants to continue working on it. He will certainly have made more progress than Harper (who I think is very bitter and still wishes Canada could join the US). Kenny had been doing a good job of wooing immigrants with social conservatism and fiscal frugality but Harper destroyed that in 2015. Even if he had not Trudeau Sr. was very popular with immigrants and JT has embraced refugees and increased family reunification which I imagine would be hugely well recieved by immigrant communities.

As to cynicism, that ship has sailed and it taints the NDP as much as the other parties because it is a generalized cynicism about politicians as a class. Maybe the BC NDP can help lift that. It is ironic that cynicism with politicians led to Ford's and Trumps victories and Trudeau's too for that matter. All that emphasis on him not having made his political mark and being a former teacher gave him an outsider persona even though he was the ultimate insider. He was so inside he didn't even have to do anything to be inside. He was born there. Singh may also benefit from being a relative newcomer to politics and completely new to most Canadians. I think in 2015 he may have been able to beat Trudeau.

These are the two big Trudeau slogans. Can anyone think of others?

Diversity is our strength

The middle class and those working to join it

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

On the other hand the other parties have to show that they have somethign better and I do not think this case has been made.

It hasn't so we have to judge by the leaders and the people surrounding them. Andrew Snear (I had to do it once) and his crass cohorts will not be able to win beyond their core. Singh will have a strong platform and campaign. He and his team will know how to make the most out of social media. He will certainly have the attention of the immigrant communities and I should think he has the potential to gain a lot there.

Singh's problem is timing. Trudeau was lucky he ran when there was Harper fatigue.

Primary slogan - the middle class and those working to join it, support - child tax credit increases, trade deals for good-paying jobs

Secondary slogan - Diversity is our strength, maybe I should call it a mandra he says it so often.

All attacks on what he hasn't done, broken promises etc. will be met with some sort of evidence of working towards those goals or accusations that the NDP was uncooperative (electoral reform).

He will do fine on the oil file. EE was withdrawn and he approved Trans-Mountain but he is going to let the courts have the final word. It seems to me that there is a very good case about the review process having been inadequate so sending Kinder Morgan back to the drawing table. As long as he doesn't push it through BC he may do all right but I suspect both the Greens and NDP will profit from it.

In a weird way this is like Catalan. The people of BC as a region I'm sure see this as an issue of local sovereignty over the land not a left right issue. I suspect there are plenty of right-wingers strongly opposed to the pipeline. We shouldn't confuse what right wing neoliberal leadership wants with what rank and file conservatives want. Burnaby seems pretty united on the issue.

I wish I were religious so I could pray to the magic being in the sky for the NDP to attack the trade deals sooner rather than later. That is a huge chink in Trudeau's armor. TPP is popular right now. People need to be educated on the ISDS chapter because as much as they support TPP they are against the ability of corporations to sue government. I can't find the article but it was something close to 60% of people are against the ability of corporations to sue government. People also want control over municipal purchases and to be able to choose to buy local. Most people think free trade should be about eliminating tariffs not controlling government purchasing. If my city wants to pay twice as much for something to buy it locally we should have that choice. The fact that it is also the sticking point in Europe on CETA makes the case even stronger. Canada doesn't even have to push it. Just agree to delete it. Something like 95% of CETA is going live and they are trying to make it seem as though it is a done deal but it isn't. The sticky part has to be accepted in all the individual legislations of the EU and that is on shaky ground. I honestly see this as a made in heaven issue for the NDP. It would win back the unions and would have broad support.

Next, take ownership of the 99%. Trudeau talks about taking from the 1% to give to the middle class and those working to join it. Start talking about the 99%. Define it. Define the .01%. Almost everyone is part of the 99%. The NDP needs some sort of 99% slogan. Maybe something so simple as 99% unite. That is what needs to happen. The NDP will never get 99% support but that has to be the goal.

Defeat neoliberalism and all is possible. As long as it reigns supreme we will keep burning fossil fuels like lemmings jumping off a cliff and social programs and public works will be starved.

Imagine trade deals with worker protections and minimum taxes on corporations and rules forbidding cities from giving free land and tax deals to lure companies.

Singh's timing should not be judged yet. You would think running against a Liberal government ought to be easier than running beside them when they do not have a current record to criticize.

I still think you minimize the vote reform issue. It may be that committed voters are the only ones who care now but the dynamics of a campaign are different. The Liberals use the lend a vote appeal against voters who are not as committed to bring them to their party. The target voters now do not care but they cannot miss the Liberals using that one after the broken promise to fix that dynamic. The alternative is for the Liberals to realize this and not be able to use this tactic. Either way it is a problem for them that won't show up until the election. If the Liberals are in a comfortable lead then it may not show up -- but the time they make this desperate appeal to shut out a potential Conservative government by gathering the vote to them, you can count on one or more of the media, the NDP and even the Conservatives to make this an issue.

Each time the Liberals played victim in the FPTP game it worked because they did not wear the system. The next time they will be the cause. The targets are going to be that minority who are not solid Liberals who want this other option. They will care then.

This is a sleeper issue.

I do not think the opposition parties will play this card until the Liberals do, so all will be quiet on this for a while. It is better strategy for them not to use it early. But when the Liberals go for that tactic, and the Liberals always go for it when they are looking at an election loss - without fail. I have seen this for 35 years. They do it becuase at those times this is the standard desperation tactic that usually works. Until now.

To think the opposition parties won't play it is to misunderstand politics -- give them a card and they will use it -- give multiple people a card -- somebody will.

Nobody cares now but when the Liberals try to use this, hypocrisy will be an accusation that will stick.

So, itis true that it does not matter right now but when it counts -- it will.

Trudeau didn't use the strategic voting angle in 2015 and he won't use it in 2019. He stated he is specifically against it. People vote strategically of their own accord if keeping someone out becomes the goal. In 2015 it is Mulcair who pleaded for strategic voting in BC.

Trudeau considers it weak and an admission of failure to ask for strategic voting. He is going to run on his record. His only response to attacks will be to repeat his talking points on his government's achievements. He knows how little sinks through to the people and how cynical they are.

He has failed on his promises to indigenous peoples but I believe he will be able to show progress and it is on that he will base his appeal to indigenous people's on. In comparision to what they got from Harper I suspect it will look pretty good. That will be his response on attacks from that angle.

It's purely opinion on my part but I am certain in my own mind that electoral reform will not be a significant issue in terms of turning votes in 2019. We won't know until the election period how much voters care about it.

I think the general theory of NDP supporters is that there is a group of voters who move between the Liberals and the NDP and that many of them voted Liberal because of promises of electoral reform, improved environmental stewardship and a new relationship between indigenous peoples and the government.

I think there is a massive group of centrist voters. When the Liberals were down and the NDP was using the approach "we're almost just like the Liberals only we follow through" the NDP rose to the point that they almost won in 2015. As soon as the Liberals had a credible leader they all swarmed back to the Liberals. The thing is by gathering support under the "we are centrist too" banner the NDP didn't actually transform voters ideas. They didn't turn them into NDPers who were swayed by Trudeau's promises in 2015 so will return to the fold based on his failures.

Number one issue is always the economy unless something huge is happening. Voters are cynical. They don't expect politicians to keep all their platform "promises" so don't see that as an issue in itself. It certainly won't make them think Trudeau is a liar or a hypocrite. If it's an issue that is important to them that might make a difference but it isn't a guarantee.

Trudeau didn't use the strategic voting angle in 2015 and he won't use it in 2019. He stated he is specifically against it. People vote strategically of their own accord if keeping someone out becomes the goal. In 2015 it is Mulcair who pleaded for strategic voting in BC.

Trudeau didn't use the strategic voting angle in 2015 and he won't use it in 2019. He stated he is specifically against it. People vote strategically of their own accord if keeping someone out becomes the goal. In 2015 it is Mulcair who pleaded for strategic voting in BC.

Of course not the Liberals would not do that from third place.

They have every time they are in trouble from second or first place.

The Liberals didn't do it at any point in the campaign and he wasn't guaranteed to win on election night. In the last days he could easily have used that approach but he knew that is a losers ploy. Saying "vote for me" to keep X out is admitting there aren't enough good reasons to vote for you. You will never see Trudeau use that angle. It isn't his style and I would bet it isn't Singh's style either. We have entered a new era in politics. There's a new generation rising up and they have their own way of doing things. The older politicians that act it are getting knocked out left right and centre. The newer ones are far more media savvy although the Conservatives may be an exception.

I'm actually very anxious to see the NDP 2019 platform. They obviously have to be critical of Trudeau on the big files.

I just went to the website and saw the policy book is back up! Does anyone know when that happened? Was it before or after Jagmeet won?

"New Democrats across Canada are getting ready to talk to their friends and neighbours about Jagmeet."

Don’t know how this 2019 election campaigns are going to look like for all the parties involved. But I’m sure about one thing, the corporate media is going to be involved to an even greater extent than any other Canadian election!

expect the corporate media circus freak side show to continue with Justin and his promoters centre stage. More of the same old. Trivial ho hum stuff about sensational headlines of little substance accompanying a picture of Justin in a pose. Or perhaps Justin’s promoters may set him up with his wife doing charity work with lots of pictures of him with a serious look on his face carrying a box or helping an old lady cross the street. Lots of people fall for that kind of BS so expect more of it as we get closer to election time.

Oh im sure there will be an actual campaign platform that will certainly be overinflated but somehow I get this feeling that we’re going to here a lot more from the American corporate media. And since Justin’s promoters will be booking interviews and photo shoots with the US media, the CBC and Toronto Starr will be all over it!

Don’t know how this 2019 election campaigns are going to look like for all the parties involved. But I’m sure about one thing, the corporate media is going to be involved to an even greater extent than any other Canadian election!

expect the corporate media circus freak side show to continue with Justin and his promoters centre stage. More of the same old. Trivial ho hum stuff about sensational headlines of little substance accompanying a picture of Justin in a pose. Or perhaps Justin’s promoters may set him up with his wife doing charity work with lots of pictures of him with a serious look on his face carrying a box or helping an old lady cross the street. Lots of people fall for that kind of BS so expect more of it as we get closer to election time.

Oh im sure there will be an actual campaign platform that will certainly be overinflated but somehow I get this feeling that we’re going to here a lot more from the American corporate media. And since Justin’s promoters will be booking interviews and photo shoots with the US media, the CBC and Toronto Starr will be all over it!

I'm sorry Pondering but broadly I'm going to have to agree with Sean here. Maybe I'm daft but to my eyes Trudeau has made a lot of political mistakes so far and other things have been generally unlucky, he is very vulnerable on a lot of angles. The only way things could be worse is if the conservatives had a halfway charismatic leader, but Scheer pulled a Dion so that's something.

All non-conservative voters in Canada are dying to get rid of FPTP. Everyone knows that any other voting system would lock the Conservatives out of power for decades (possibly forever). Even if Trudeau doesn't appeal to FPTP directly, every time he tries to paint Scheer as a bogeyman Singh can say "it's YOUR fault he could even win power because you backtracked on ER" - and Singh will be 100% right. Nobody is going to believe Trudeau when he tries to blame the NDP for not cooperating. He promised it. He got a majority. He had the ability to implement it and chose not to because he couldn't get the system that was best for him (ranked ballots). FPTP is better for him than MMP so he chose FPTP. So he's been exposed, he didn't want to do the right thing by giving every Canadian a voice, he wanted to do the right thing for Liberals, or at maybe just himself. Anything he promises is suspect after that and other promises he's broken.

Trudeau is going to lose everyone who wants to support the first minority candidate for PM in Canadian history, and with Trump south of us there's going to be more and more people who fit that bill. This isn't to take away from Singh's accomplishments, but it's just a straight advantage for Singh vs. Trudeau because any racists who would never vote for Singh are going to vote for Scheer over "diversity is our strength" Trudeau anyway. For the 70% who are deciding between Singh and Trudeau, Singh has the advantage because as Trudeau always says, diversity is our strength.

And as far as trade deals goes - have you seen how globalist policies have been getting rewarded across the western world lately? I don't think running on any kind of trade deal is going to be a winning strategy. Voters want politicians who will work for them, not international corporations, and at this point everyone is wise to who trade deals are really made to serve.

None of these things are going to be the central focus, of course, but these and other issues are going to add up and seriously cause problems for Trudeau. He's setting up a lot of traps...for himself. He seems shockingly out of touch. Maybe I'm underestimating him, which would be really ironic considering I spent the 2015 election telling people not to do that. I'm not ready to bet against him, but only because there is too much stuff unrelated to federal Canadian politics that will impact Canadian federal politics before 2019. At the rate things are going, though, I'm watching him making a lot of mistakes and I bet he makes a lot more, especially with his buddy Wynne seeking re-election in Ontario next year.

Trudeau didn't use the strategic voting angle in 2015 and he won't use it in 2019. He stated he is specifically against it. People vote strategically of their own accord if keeping someone out becomes the goal. In 2015 it is Mulcair who pleaded for strategic voting in BC.

Of course not the Liberals would not do that from third place.

They have every time they are in trouble from second or first place.

The Liberals didn't do it at any point in the campaign and he wasn't guaranteed to win on election night. In the last days he could easily have used that approach but he knew that is a losers ploy. Saying "vote for me" to keep X out is admitting there aren't enough good reasons to vote for you. You will never see Trudeau use that angle. It isn't his style and I would bet it isn't Singh's style either. We have entered a new era in politics. There's a new generation rising up and they have their own way of doing things. The older politicians that act it are getting knocked out left right and centre. The newer ones are far more media savvy although the Conservatives may be an exception.

I don't thing politics is all that different from half a century ago when Trudeau senior, Stanfield, and Lewis were leaders. Can Scheer catch a football? Can Justin or Jagmeet do a pirouette? However, the entire political spectrum does seem to have shifted rightward since then. Oh fuddleduddle!

70% of voters aren't deciding between Singh and Trudeau. From the link below 40% of voters would consider voting NDP. Some of those are likely deciding between the Greens and the NDP or the Bloc and the NDP, rather than the Liberals and the NDP.

All non-conservative voters in Canada are dying to get rid of FPTP. Everyone knows that any other voting system would lock the Conservatives out of power for decades (possibly forever).

That isn’t even close to accurate. The grand majority of Canadians have no problem at all with FPTP. It looks like BC is ready to give it a go provincially but that is far from a Canadian consensus. If people were so desperate to keep the Conservatives out of power Harper would have had one term.

Cody87 wrote:

Even if Trudeau doesn't appeal to FPTP directly, every time he tries to paint Scheer as a bogeyman Singh can say "it's YOUR fault he could even win power because you backtracked on ER" - and Singh will be 100% right. Nobody is going to believe Trudeau when he tries to blame the NDP for not cooperating. He promised it.

Trudeau is not going to try to paint Sheer as a bogeyman. That is so 2005. People already know that ER didn’t happen. It didn’t affect his numbers in the polls. People aren’t suddenly going to care more about it in 2019.

Cody87 wrote:

Trudeau is going to lose everyone who wants to support the first minority candidate for PM in Canadian history,…

I don’t think many people will vote based on the colour of Singh’s skin. Sure he will pull in a lot of Sikh votes but immigrants will still consider the economy and what Trudeau has done. All black people didn’t vote for Obama and all women didn’t vote for Clinton and in both cases their opponents were horrendous in comparison to Trudeau. Singh will still have an uphill climb. Despite Corderre’s loss incumbents still have the upper hand.

Cody87 wrote:

And as far as trade deals goes - have you seen how globalist policies have been getting rewarded across the western world lately?

That is why it infuriates me that the NDP has not taken up trade deals as an urgent priority. TPP has gained in popularity since Trump started threatening NAFTA. If the NDP takes up the issue of trade deals now I think that is Trudeau’s Achilles heel but not if the NDP says nothing until 2019. In that case trade deals will help Trudeau.

Cody87 wrote:

Maybe I'm underestimating him, which would be really ironic considering I spent the 2015 election telling people not to do that… At the rate things are going, though, I'm watching him making a lot of mistakes and I bet he makes a lot more, especially with his buddy Wynne seeking re-election in Ontario next year.

I think you are underestimating him and overestimating the attention and memory span of Canadians especially swing voters.

You and Sean both seem to think that Trudeau has been making mistakes that the NDP will be able to use against him in 2019. Now the Paradise papers have exploded into the news and there is no telling how long that will last or how much it will damage Trudeau as long as he is personally clean and does nothing to impede the investigations. There have been huge political scandals that haven’t brought down PMs, but on the other hand the sponsorship scandal took down Paul Martin. But that was timing as well. It peaked during the election period. So far I don’t think it is enough to impact Trudeau in 2019.

If the NDP comes at him the traditional way, the way they always have, they are likely to have the same outcome they have always had. The Liberals will likely win and if they don’t the Conservatives will win. I’m hoping Jagmeet is smarter than that.

Trudeau is vulnerable on this file. By saying it now the NDP has plenty of time to gather support and prove that it is evidence based policy. It's an issue that will have broad support among NDP members and it should have support within the medical community as well. Organizations will come out in support.

Trudeau is vulnerable on this file. By saying it now the NDP has plenty of time to gather support and prove that it is evidence based policy. It's an issue that will have broad support among NDP members and it should have support within the medical community as well. Organizations will come out in support.

Myself personally I support Jagmeet stance on this issue.

But Jagmeet risks losing support from the ethnic community in the 905 that is much more conservative with social issues. Immigrant communities will have a hard time wrapping their brains around the concept of the legalization of hard drugs.

Trudeau is vulnerable on this file. By saying it now the NDP has plenty of time to gather support and prove that it is evidence based policy. It's an issue that will have broad support among NDP members and it should have support within the medical community as well. Organizations will come out in support.

Myself personally I support Jagmeet stance on this issue.

But Jagmeet risks losing support from the ethnic community in the 905 that is much more conservative with social issues. Immigrant communities will have a hard time wrapping their brains around the concept of the legalization of hard drugs.

There is always some risk in taking up a cause that does not yet have majority support. That was the case with Cannabis but Trudeau bet that he could turn the numbers by election day and he did. I don't think he got a lot of votes specifically on legalization but it placed him to the left of the NDP. Taking this stand puts the NDP back to the left of the Liberals perceptually.

Jagmeet is not proposing legalization of hard drugs. He is proposing decriminalizing usage associated with addiction so it can be treated as a health issue. Trafficking would remain illegal. Large reputable organizations will get behind him on this.

This may not win him any votes in the immigrant community but I don't think it will lose him any either because immigrants have different priorities. Most are focused on economic issues and many come from countries where law enforcement isn't trusted. Many belong to communities whose kids get records for using because they don't have connections to get them out of it. I don't know either way but I wouldn't assume it will hurt him. I'm sure he thought about all the angles before coming out.

If you were some anonymous (and perhaps even fictitious!) 14 year old, your quote would be on a million mailers from a half dozen different Conservative organizations.

"Look! This young fellow is just waiting for the day that he won't need to fear 'juvie' if he succumbs!"

Anyway, while heroin and similar are not yet officially decriminalized, I note that the City of Toronto seems to be going along with harm-reduction organizations and allowing "safe-injection" sites to pop up in the GTA.

Ironically, even as the City seems to be waging Holy War with any dispensary that would sell a gram of weed to an adult. But hey, not my business! There must be a good, medical reason to shut down weed while providing a heated tent for crack.

If the NDP comes at him the traditional way, the way they always have, they are likely to have the same outcome they have always had. The Liberals will likely win and if they don’t the Conservatives will win. I’m hoping Jagmeet is smarter than that.

That would explain the 2011 result and other elections where the NDP held the balance of power.

If the NDP comes at him the traditional way, the way they always have, they are likely to have the same outcome they have always had. The Liberals will likely win and if they don’t the Conservatives will win. I’m hoping Jagmeet is smarter than that.

That would explain the 2011 result and other elections where the NDP held the balance of power.

I'm pretty sure the NDP is done with being the conscience of Canada and wants to win first place. As long as the focus of the NDP is the Liberals rather than the people of Canada the NDP will either fail or be elected on a Liberal platform. The NDP orange wave was based on the NDP being as centrist as the Liberals but with a better leader, Layton. Mulcair doubled down on being Liberal Lite. That approach had some success because the Liberal leaders were so weak. That is not the case with Trudeau. It's possible Morneau will be in serious trouble but so far he isn't. The Paradise papers might bring him down but not because of anything the NDP is doing. Let the conservatives be the harassers. The NDP needs to offer an alternative vision of Canada.

Last Wednesday at 4 a.m., the false news was ready to be launched into media networks, to be picked up by newsroom editors and producers and spread across the country dressed up as a fact.

No, it wasn’t an early morning fake news tweet from Donald Trump. Or the latest bogus claim from some alt-right website. It was a false Canadian news story produced by one of the most established Canadian media sources, the Canadian Press.

And it set off a disturbing chain of events, raising serious questions not only about media capability and commitment to shut down fake news, but also whether some Canadian outlets are willing to knowingly propagate it.

The 4 a.m. news story was from the Canadian Press — a news service that provides completed reports to subscribing newsrooms. And the story carried the headline “Singh launched NDP byelection campaign in wrong Scarborough riding.” As they do every morning, editors and producers would have reviewed the story assuming it’d been checked before they decided whether to run it. And many did.

But it hadn’t been checked. The report described an NDP event held in Scarborough with federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as a byelection launch event. Except it wasn’t. It was, in fact, just another of the many “JagMeet and Greet” events the party has organized across the country to allow NDP members to meet their new leader. It was in Scarborough. But it wasn’t the campaign launch.

The NDP’s Scarborough-Agincourt byelection campaign launch had taken place a week before. And definitely took place inside the boundaries of the riding. The story was totally wrong.

It seems the CP reporter was so sure she had a wonderful piece of embarrassing clickbait for newsrooms that she closed her report with an editorial tone and dismissive advice. For the next byelection, she proffered, “sending the leader into the wrong riding might be one of the things they’ll want to consider.” Take that, dumb NDP.

But the reporter never checked the facts properly. No NDP media officer was ever asked about it. She got some bad information from somewhere and, without sufficiently fact-checking or confirming facts with the people who would know them, stamped it with the credibility of the Canadian Press — and out it went.

That morning thousands — maybe hundreds of thousands — of Canadians read a story presenting Jagmeet Singh and the NDP as a crew of rubes who can’t read a map. But it wasn’t Singh that hadn’t done his job. It was the reporter.

Sure, it’s only the NDP, so it really doesn’t matter. Or, sure, but politics is a tough game.

Sorry, those excuses don’t work.

Look south of the border to see where that attitude ends up — a country that can’t tell the difference between opinion and facts. A president who tells so many lies so often that quality reporters can’t keep up. Opinion disguised as reporting and torqued by partisan spin. Billionaire funded think tanks. Alt-right and fake news outlets. A growing reliance on personal trusted information networks, especially Facebook or Twitter, has emerged even as those networks have become flooded with false stories so compelling they are forwarded without checking — thereby replicating the viral contamination of falseness.

The result is an electorate that doesn’t know who can be trusted and what is true. Where political debate has become unconnected to facts. Where political decisions are unmoored. And informed democratic choice is undermined.

We’re not close to that turmoil in Canada. And we never want to be. That’s why it is the duty of reporters to get the story right.

Of course it was an unacceptable mistake for the 4 a.m. story to be sent out without confirming facts. It gave Canadians fake news with the quality imprimatur of the Canadian Press on it. But it gets worse.

At 11:38 a.m. came a revised story. By this time links to the online invitation to the real campaign launch event — the one inside the riding, as of course it would be — were already circulating on social media, with some tweets even mentioning the CP reporter. But while the revised story included comments by an NDP media officer confirming the event wasn’t the campaign launch, the revised story still carried the same “wrong riding” false headline, false information and snarky wrap-up. Huh?

A little past noon, Singh held a press conference in Ottawa at which he corrected the record. And at 2:39 p.m. came a third Canadian Press write-through, dialing back the story and changing the false headline. But it now included new text suggesting there was something wrong with Singh holding an event in Scarborough but “outside the riding where it knew a byelection call was imminent.” Classic move. Some people just can’t let go. Or don’t know how big Scarborough is.

Take Care of Yourself: The Science and Practice of Well-Being comes to the Lower Mainland in February 2018.

No, it wasn’t an early morning fake news tweet from Donald Trump. Or the latest bogus claim from some alt-right website. It was a false Canadian news story produced by one of the most established Canadian media sources, the Canadian Press.

And it set off a disturbing chain of events, raising serious questions not only about media capability and commitment to shut down fake news, but also whether some Canadian outlets are willing to knowingly propagate it.

The 4 a.m. news story was from the Canadian Press — a news service that provides completed reports to subscribing newsrooms. And the story carried the headline “Singh launched NDP byelection campaign in wrong Scarborough riding.” As they do every morning, editors and producers would have reviewed the story assuming it’d been checked before they decided whether to run it. And many did.

But it hadn’t been checked. The report described an NDP event held in Scarborough with federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as a byelection launch event. Except it wasn’t. It was, in fact, just another of the many “JagMeet and Greet” events the party has organized across the country to allow NDP members to meet their new leader. It was in Scarborough. But it wasn’t the campaign launch.

The NDP’s Scarborough-Agincourt byelection campaign launch had taken place a week before. And definitely took place inside the boundaries of the riding. The story was totally wrong.

It seems the CP reporter was so sure she had a wonderful piece of embarrassing clickbait for newsrooms that she closed her report with an editorial tone and dismissive advice. For the next byelection, she proffered, “sending the leader into the wrong riding might be one of the things they’ll want to consider.” Take that, dumb NDP.

But the reporter never checked the facts properly. No NDP media officer was ever asked about it. She got some bad information from somewhere and, without sufficiently fact-checking or confirming facts with the people who would know them, stamped it with the credibility of the Canadian Press — and out it went.

That morning thousands — maybe hundreds of thousands — of Canadians read a story presenting Jagmeet Singh and the NDP as a crew of rubes who can’t read a map. But it wasn’t Singh that hadn’t done his job. It was the reporter.

Sure, it’s only the NDP, so it really doesn’t matter. Or, sure, but politics is a tough game.

Sorry, those excuses don’t work.

Look south of the border to see where that attitude ends up — a country that can’t tell the difference between opinion and facts. A president who tells so many lies so often that quality reporters can’t keep up. Opinion disguised as reporting and torqued by partisan spin. Billionaire funded think tanks. Alt-right and fake news outlets. A growing reliance on personal trusted information networks, especially Facebook or Twitter, has emerged even as those networks have become flooded with false stories so compelling they are forwarded without checking — thereby replicating the viral contamination of falseness.

The result is an electorate that doesn’t know who can be trusted and what is true. Where political debate has become unconnected to facts. Where political decisions are unmoored. And informed democratic choice is undermined.

We’re not close to that turmoil in Canada. And we never want to be. That’s why it is the duty of reporters to get the story right.

Of course it was an unacceptable mistake for the 4 a.m. story to be sent out without confirming facts. It gave Canadians fake news with the quality imprimatur of the Canadian Press on it. But it gets worse.

At 11:38 a.m. came a revised story. By this time links to the online invitation to the real campaign launch event — the one inside the riding, as of course it would be — were already circulating on social media, with some tweets even mentioning the CP reporter. But while the revised story included comments by an NDP media officer confirming the event wasn’t the campaign launch, the revised story still carried the same “wrong riding” false headline, false information and snarky wrap-up. Huh?

A little past noon, Singh held a press conference in Ottawa at which he corrected the record. And at 2:39 p.m. came a third Canadian Press write-through, dialing back the story and changing the false headline. But it now included new text suggesting there was something wrong with Singh holding an event in Scarborough but “outside the riding where it knew a byelection call was imminent.” Classic move. Some people just can’t let go. Or don’t know how big Scarborough is

Take Care of Yourself: The Science and Practice of Well-Being comes to the Lower Mainland in February 2018.

Here, a cluster of digital outlets have flowered by paying for top notch investigative and solutions-focused reporting. They are forging new business models and training the next wave of journalists.

Taken together, they form a news media ecosystem in which surviving means competing but also collaborating. Yes, each vies to break stories and attract money. But they also sometimes republish each other’s pieces, pool resources or team up.

It’s a remarkable list, representing millions of dollars in journalism budgets, a combined staff larger than the Vancouver Sun-Province reporter pool, numerous major awards, a steady stream of high-impact work, and millions of page views per month.

Some of the big ground broken in this little region:

The Tyee launched the 100-Mile Diet, helping spark the local food movement, and has reported early and continuously on fixing the housing affordability crisis. With no paywall, it’s nearly majority reader supported, with some philanthropic funding plus investment from a labour-tied fund.

The National Observer’s energy sector investigations have rockedOttawa and forced resignations. It mixes revenues from paywall subscribers, philanthropies and other sources.

Discourse Media, which specializes in deeply reported projects it terms “collaborative,” is now offering its readers a chance to co-own the company as it aggressively pursues growth.

The non-profit Global Reporting Centre, whose mission is to innovate how global journalism is practised and cover neglected issues worldwide, has crowdsourced storytellers to document the rise of xenophobia.

Hakai Magazine, backed by the Tula Foundation and tied to Hakai Institute, covers coastal science, ecology and communities. It pays top rates for stories from around the world, and has an in-house team producing frequently viral videos.

A single video interview about Site C dam published by non-profit DeSmog Canada drew 1.6 million views. It mixes funding from readers and philanthropies.

While these orgs aren’t muscling aside B.C. megafauna like the CBC, Globe and Mail, Postmedia and Huffington Post, they serve as “tip sheets” for those newsrooms, who often pick up their stories and run their own versions. In this way the smaller fry contribute to the public conversation by means rarely highlighted.

The Tyee has partnered with the CBC on series about Indigenous education best practices, and affordable homes;

The National Observer is producing with the Toronto Star, Global News and others a major project tracking oil industry influence, in partnership with investigative journalism students from across the country;

Discourse Media helped research a Maclean’s feature on Indigenous overrepresentation in prisons;

DeSmog Canada worked closely with Aboriginal People’s Television Network Investigates on a Site C piece;

And Megaphone is joining with the CBC on a series about preventing overdoses.

What is emerging here is a good news story about the future of news, one worth paying attention to across Canada and beyond.

As the collapse of advertising revenues is threatening to kill Canada’s major newspaper chain, B.C.’s indies are far less dependent on ad dollars for their survival.

At a moment when trivial click-bait is said to rule, experiments in B.C. are instead pumping out in-depth, public interest journalism.

And the net result is a more fully informed citizenry, a healthier democracy.

Why did B.C. become home to Canada’s most vibrant news ecosystem? Credit the wellspring of creativity here — the province’s beauty and potential has long attracted change makers.

Credit, as well, a backlash empowered by digital tech. For decades, corporations headquartered in Central Canada have owned this province’s news giants and their content reflected it. The pent-up appetite for home grown media spawned upstarts rooted in B.C. culture and interests. That can irritate some outsiders. Alberta Oil magazine fretted that the “The Vancouver School” of journalism was too effectively making the case against pipelines connecting the oil sands to B.C.’s coast.

A more detailed map of media innovators in this province could include people behind many projects based elsewhere. British Columbians helped start, for example, the political site Ricochet, the foreign policy site OpenCanada, and The Conversation Canada, where academics share their findings in opinion pieces.

For anyone interested in diving into this region’s dynamic scene, Vancouver Media Democracy Day offers a perfect opportunity on Nov. 18 at the public library’s central branch downtown. Most of the entities mentioned above, and many more, will be on hand. Some will showcase their work. There will be workshops, roundtables, networking.

B.C. is home to an expanding media sector needing people to help it grow. If that’s news to you, Media Democracy Day is the place to plug in.

NorthReport your post of some 100 tweets was an abuse of this reader. Many of them were just one character wide. It took a long time just to scroll down past that execrable post. Just link or say something yourself.

NorthReport your post of some 100 tweets was an abuse of this reader. Many of them were just one character wide. It took a long time just to scroll down past that execrable post. Just link or say something yourself.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Progressive17 again 100%. That is two for two.